A systematic mapping of funders of maternal health intervention research 2000-2012

Abstract

Background: The priorities of research funding bodies govern the research agenda, which has important implications for the provision of evidence to inform policy. This study examines the research funding landscape for maternal health interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

Methods: This review draws on a database of 2340 academic papers collected through a large-scale systematic mapping of research on maternal health interventions in LMICs published from 2000-2012. The names of funders acknowledged on each paper were extracted and categorised into groups. It was noted whether support took a specific form, such as staff fellowships or drugs. Variations between funder types across regions and topics of research were assessed.

Results: Funding sources were only reported in 1572 (67%) of articles reviewed. A high number of different funders (685) were acknowledged, but only a few dominated funding of published research. Bilateral funders, national research agencies and private foundations were most prominent, while private companies were most commonly acknowledged for support 'in kind'. The intervention topics and geographic regions of research funded by the various funder types had much in common, with HIV being the most common topic and sub-Saharan Africa being the most common region for all types of funder. Publication outputs rose substantially for several funder types over the period, with the largest increase among bilateral funders.

Conclusions: A considerable number of organisations provide funding for maternal health research, but a handful account for most funding acknowledgements. Broadly speaking, these organisations address similar topics and regions. This suggests little coordination between funding agencies, risking duplication and neglect of some areas of maternal health research, and limiting the ability of organisations to develop the specialised skills required for systematically addressing a research topic. Greater transparency in reporting of funding is required, as the role of funders in the research process is often unclear.

Figure 1

Flow chart of overall systematic mapping.

Figure 2

Number of funder mentions attributed to the three largest funders in each funder type. Abbreviations: DFID UK Department of International Development; CDC Centers for Disease Control; WHO World Health Organisation; EU European Union; PEPFAR US President’s Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief; ANRS Agence Nationale de Recherche sur le Sida; MRC Medical Research Council; EGPAF Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation; Gates Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; Wellcome Trust; BI Boehringer Ingelheim; GSK GlaxosmithKline. Unlabelled major funders: Roll Back Malaria, Global Fund (Global health initiatives); L'Institut de recherche pour le développement (IRD), University of Copenhagen, University of North Carolina (Universities); Population Council, Medecins sans Frontieres (International NGOs); Health Foundation, ICDDR,B, Childbirth Connection (National NGOs); MacArthur Foundation (Private Foundations); Government of Thailand, Government of South Africa, Government of Brazil (National Governments).

Figure 3

The distribution of funder types by major regions.

Figure 4

Regions addressed by different funder types (as a % of all papers).

Figure 5

The distribution of funder types by topic. a. A stacked percentage bar chart showing the distribution of funder types for each topic. b. Five largest funders for each material health topic.

Figure 6

Topics addressed by different funder types (as a % of total papers not funder mentions).

Figure 7

Changes in the number of papers acknowledging each funder type between 2000–2011.